1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHAWN HAWK, No. CIV S-04-0731-MCE-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

ALAMEIDA, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s third amended complaint (Doc. 21),

filed on December 30, 2005.

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief

against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(a). 

Plaintiff names the following as defendants: Alameida; Runnels; Cook;

Ingwerson; Howard; Perry; Swartz; Correa; and Chettam. Defendants Alameida and Runnels are

supervisory personnel. Plaintiff states that, on October 10, 2002, he was issued a “general

counseling chrono” indicating that he was not in compliance with the prison’s grooming

Case 2:04-cv-00731-MCE -CMK Document 22 Filed 05/24/06 Page 1 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

regulations. Plaintiff claims that this “chrono” contained false information. The same day,

plaintiff filed an inmate grievance concerning the allegedly false information in the “chrono,”

and asked that the “chrono” be removed from his file because the grooming regulations violate

his religious beliefs. Plaintiff states that, on October 14, 2002, he spoke with defendant Cook

regarding the “chrono.” Plaintiff states that, during this conversation, he informed defendant

Cook about a court injunction entered in favor of prisoners at California State Prison, Solano,

which forbids enforcement of the grooming regulations. Plaintiff claims that defendant Cook

stated that no change in policy would be considered until and unless an injunction was issued in

favor of inmates at plaintiff’s institution (High Desert State Prison). 

Plaintiff claims that, on October 16, 2002, he was charged with a rules violation

based on non-compliance with the grooming standards. Plaintiff reported to the “program

office” on October 26, 2002, for a hearing on the rules violation. When asked for reasons why

he refused to comply with the grooming regulations, plaintiff stated the following: (1) he has a

sincere belief, founded in Native American religious practices, barring him from cutting his hair

unless a relative dies; (2) grooming tools supplied to prisoners are causing injuries, including

drawing blood, which exposes inmates to blood-borne pathogens; (3) prison barbers were not

adequately trained in blood-borne pathogens and how to prevent infection; (4) the injunction

issued in favor of prisoners at the California State Prison, Solano, barred enforcement of the

grooming regulations; (5) the grooming regulations were not being applied equally among

prisoners; and (6) the prison has an obligation to protect inmates from blood-borne pathogens

and to allow for religious freedom. Plaintiff states that he was found “not guilty” of the rules

violation, which was dismissed. Plaintiff indicates that defendant Cook approved this result. 

Next, plaintiff claims that, on October 26, 2002, a fight broke out among white

and Asian inmates, which groups were subsequently placed on lock-down. Plaintiff states that,

even though he is a Native American, he was also placed on lock-down because his cellmate is

white. Plaintiff alleges that he was told by defendant Correa that, as long as he was housed with

Case 2:04-cv-00731-MCE -CMK Document 22 Filed 05/24/06 Page 2 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

3

a white inmate, he would also be subject to the lock-down. Plaintiff states that defendant Correa

told him that this directive came from defendants Perry, Cook, and Runnels. Plaintiff alleges

that he learned from another Native American inmate that, in fact, plaintiff was being singled out

because he refused to comply with the grooming regulations. Plaintiff asserts that this other

inmate also observed that other Native American inmates housed with white inmates were not on

lock-down, and that only plaintiff was being treated differently. Plaintiff states that he filed an

inmate grievance concerning his lock-down, but that prison officials never responded. 

Plaintiff alleges that, on October 29, 2002, defendant Swartz issued another rules

violation report against plaintiff based on the grooming regulations. Plaintiff claims that, as with

the prior rules violation report, this one was also based on false information. A hearing on the

rules violation was conducted by defendant Howard on November 10, 2002. Plaintiff states that

the prison staff assigned to assist him with the hearing failed to obtain necessary documents that

plaintiff had requested. Plaintiff also states that the witnesses he had requested were not present

at the hearing. After providing defendant Howard with the same responses he gave at the prior

rules violation hearing, defendant Howard found plaintiff guilty of the rules violation. Plaintiff

was punished by having his recreational time taken away. 

Plaintiff claims that, on November 11, 2002, he was called to a meeting with

defendants Swartz and Chettam about plaintiff’s refusal to comply with the grooming

regulations. Plaintiff continued to refuse to comply with the grooming regulations and plaintiff

was charged with yet another rules violation based on his refusal to cut his hair. Plaintiff states

that, on January 3, 2003, the rules violation was re-heard by defendant Ingwerson. Plaintiff

states that he was permitted for the first time to call witnesses and present evidence, though

plaintiff claims that he was not allowed to present evidence concerning ineffectiveness of

disinfectants used on barber equipment. Plaintiff claims that he was again found guilty of a rules

violation and that he lost 30 days good-time credits and was denied yard time for 30 days as a

result. 

Case 2:04-cv-00731-MCE -CMK Document 22 Filed 05/24/06 Page 3 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

4

As to defendant Alameida, plaintiff claims that he informed him of the foregoing

in the form in inmate appeal, but that defendant Alameida did nothing.

Plaintiff seeks a determination that the grooming regulations are unconstitutional,

and an injunction barring enforcement of the grooming regulations. Plaintiff also seeks

compensatory and punitive damages. 

The third amended complaint appears to state a cognizable claim for relief

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). If the allegations are proven, plaintiff

has a reasonable opportunity to prevail on the merits of this action. The court, therefore, finds

that service is appropriate and will direct service by the U.S. Marshal without pre-payment of

costs. Plaintiff is informed, however, that this action cannot proceed further until plaintiff

complies with this order. Plaintiff is warned that failure to comply with this order may result in

dismissal of the action. See Local Rule 11-110. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Service is appropriate for the following defendant(s): 

ALAMEIDA; 

RUNNELS;

COOK; 

INGWERSON;

HOWARD;

PERRY;

SWARTZ; 

CORREA; and 

CHETTAM;

2. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff one USM-285 form for each

defendant identified above, one summons, an instruction sheet, and a copy of the third amended

complaint filed December 30, 2005; and

Case 2:04-cv-00731-MCE -CMK Document 22 Filed 05/24/06 Page 4 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

5

3. Within 30 days of the date of service of this order, plaintiff shall complete

the attached Notice of Submission of Documents and submit the following documents to the

court:

a. The completed Notice of Submission of Documents;

b. One completed summons;

c. Nine completed USM-285 form(s); and

d. Ten copies of the endorsed third amended complaint filed

December 30, 2005.

DATED: May 23, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-00731-MCE -CMK Document 22 Filed 05/24/06 Page 5 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHAWN HAWK, No. CIV S-04-0731-MCE-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs.

ALAMEIDA, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS

Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court's

order:

 1 completed summons form;

 completed USM-285 form(s); and

 copies of the third amended complaint filed on December 30,

2005.

DATED: __________________ ____________________________________

Plaintiff 

Case 2:04-cv-00731-MCE -CMK Document 22 Filed 05/24/06 Page 6 of 6